Burning CD. Logic says...

[Lerxst]

Hi,

I buy lossless CDs online then burn them myself if I can, unless they are rare or foreign or something, in which case I have to a buy a real CD.

I have a Cambridge Audio CXC and one of the big things about this unit is that it JUST does CDs and runs them at super-correct speed etc, bla, bla.

No complaits about the sound the cxc produces. But... I am burning my CDs with a standard PC burner. So, in theory, because my burner is crap I should be getting problems right? The CXC never refuses to play one. Never had a duff one - except once when there were little pops on the songs, which sounded to me like something was wrong digitally - out of sync or whatever, I cannot profess to be an expert in that area. A reburn was the solution.

My DAC is Music Fidelity V90.

So, factory CD or my cheapo burned one - I really cannot hear the difference. Even compared burned copies to "real" ones. Same to my ears.

I don't understand.

Should I go back to a transistor radio because my listening abilities are not worthy of hifi?

Or is there another explanation?

Thanks in advance

Chris

Added later: And...I am using free software - CD Burner XP.

[Pieoftheday]

Hi,

I buy lossless CDs online then burn them myself if I can, unless they are rare or foreign or something, in which case I have to a buy a real CD.

I have a Cambridge Audio CXC and one of the big things about this unit is that it JUST does CDs and runs them at super-correct speed etc, bla, bla.

No complaits about the sound the cxc produces. But... I am burning my CDs with a standard PC burner. So, in theory, because my burner is crap I should be getting problems right? The CXC never refuses to play one. Never had a duff one - except once when there were little pops on the songs, which sounded to me like something was wrong digitally - out of sync or whatever, I cannot profess to be an expert in that area. A reburn was the solution.

My DAC is Music Fidelity V90.

So, factory CD or my cheapo burned one - I really cannot hear the difference. Even compared burned copies to "real" ones. Same to my ears.

I don't understand.

Should I go back to a transistor radio because my listening abilities are not worthy of hifi?

Or is there another explanation?

Thanks in advance

Chris

Added later: And...I am using free software - CD Burner XP.

Can I ask, why buy knock off CDs and re copy them?

[Lerxst]

I don't. I use 7digital mainly. You buy, download a zip, expand to flac and then burn. I can buy individual songs if I want too. So, just the tracks I like. I can preview too.

So, for clarity, I buy the files online, not the CDs

[Pieoftheday]

I don't. I use 7digital mainly. You buy, download a zip, expand to flac and then burn. I can buy individual songs if I want too. So, just the tracks I like. I can preview too.

Ah I getcha, you buy downloads:) it read as though you bought dodgy CDs ,Personally I like to buy proper CDs,many pre-owned ones are dead cheap, Ive heard good things about the Cambridge audio transport

[struth]

No reason for it not to sound identical as it is and played through same gear. Rip software is pretty much the same

[Lerxst]

Yes, downloads. Haha.

I think I worded things badly.

Grant, If I buy a download, for argument's same Michael Jackson's Greatest hits, burn it with my crappy player. Then a friend comes round with a factory-burned one he bought from a shop, in the box, with the sleeves etc - we can't tell the difference. Same playback gear, different burn - I use a £15 bit of rubbish and the CD factory has some better I presume

Sorry if my brain is not good today. My pills.

[JimC]

You sound disappointed that they both sound the same and................you like the sound.

Sounds like a win win to me, be happy my friend, it's good that they're identical.

;)

Jim.

[struth]

Your disc won't last as long as its burned but you can always do it again. Of course you can do same buying cd and then flac-ing it and burning too should all sound the same

[Lerxst]

Well, I am pleased, of course! lol.

Just don't get why. I would expect true audiophiles to be banging on about their expensive CD burners with speed regulators etc to get the best copy. But you never hear that.

Does no one else download files like this? I'm getting the feeling I am in a minority!

You can buy something in 5 minutes and 10 minutes later it is playing in your house. No waiting around - I love buying stuff like this

[Stratmangler]

Does no one else download files like this? I'm getting the feeling I am in a minority!

First time I've ever heard of it!


You can buy something in 5 minutes and 10 minutes later it is playing in your house. No waiting around - I love buying stuff like this

Many of us miss out the burning to CD bit and get the files playing directly onto a stream rendering device.

[Edward]

I sometimes burn downloaded music to CD. 99% of the time the discs read well. If not I just dump that disc and burn at a slower speed. I think my cd/dvd writer costs the grand sum of £10 or so years ago. These days I tend not to burn discs, rather stream directly to my system. When I do burn CDs it is for the car and then I burn in MP3 format (320/16) so I can get many albums on one CD. High res MP3s are great for the car.

When I need to buy blank CDs I get them from Poundland. :cool: I use to fret getting the 'best' gold CDs - waste of time.

[Sherwood]

Yes, downloads. Haha.

I think I worded things badly.

Grant, If I buy a download, for argument's same Michael Jackson's Greatest hits, burn it with my crappy player. Then a friend comes round with a factory-burned one he bought from a shop, in the box, with the sleeves etc - we can't tell the difference. Same playback gear, different burn - I use a £15 bit of rubbish and the CD factory has some better I presume

Sorry if my brain is not good today. My pills.

I think you are neglecting the difference in technology between a "pressed" cd and a "burned" cd. Very different processes and equipment involved. Potentially a burned cd has less errors initially but the dyes degrade over time. Personally, I rip my cds when I buy them and put them into storage immediately. I find the sound of an accurately ripped album better.

Geoff

[bobvfr]

A digital copy regardless of cost should have the same information as the original as long as there is built in error checking (Which they would all have) so basically your digital files are just a lot of 1's or zero's the same as on the original digital recording.

So if the original recording is 110011 and your burnt disc is 110011 and not 110101 you are in business.

[Sherwood]

A digital copy regardless of cost should have the same information as the original as long as there is built in error checking (Which they would all have) so basically your digital files are just a lot of 1's or zero's the same as on the original digital recording.

So if the original recording is 110011 and your burnt disc is 110011 and not 110101 you are in business.

In theory you are correct. However, I use dBpoweramp to rip my CDs and the process compares my digital rip to a database of previously ripped CDs. Whilst not common, I do sometimes get ripping errors with new CDs which error correction fails to deal with. Some pressing factories seem to be worse than others.

Geoff

[bobvfr]

You may get ripping errors, but does this change the information, it may have gaps of information but it can't change it ?

It isn't going to turn a bass note into a treble.

So the theory is 100% correct, a successful copy (By download or ripping) must be an identical copy, so the information must be the same.

If you ever find changed information, then the software involved must be wrong.

So as far as the OP is concerned the information must be the same, otherwise we had all better run to the hills because the modern world will collapse sooner than we think ;-)

[Edward]

You may get ripping errors, but does this change the information, it may have gaps of information but it can't change it ?

It isn't going to turn a bass note into a treble.

So the theory is 100% correct, a successful copy (By download or ripping) must be an identical copy, so the information must be the same.

If you ever find changed information, then the software involved must be wrong.

So as far as the OP is concerned the information must be the same, otherwise we had all better run to the hills because the modern world will collapse sooner than we think ;-)

According to my understanding errors may occur due to the laser not being able to read the data correctly (due, for example, to poor CD manufacture) and the ripping software will, instead of aborting the the whole rip, interpolate the data and continue the rip. This will then result in a CRC error check against known correct rips of that CD.

[Sherwood]

According to my understanding errors may occur due to the laser not being able to read the data correctly (due, for example, to poor CD manufacture) and the ripping software will, instead of aborting the the whole rip, interpolate the data and continue the rip. This will then result in a CRC error check against known correct rips of that CD.

Exactly. The errors may not be obviously audible but they are there so that the pressed or burned cd will not be identical to the original master file.

Geoff

[Tim]

It would be wrong to assume a rip is flawed, audibly different to the master or imperfect if it fails a CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) error check.

CRC is a method of verifying data integrity but it wasn't invented with audio in mind, it's a method of checking large blocks of data quickly and efficiently, to identify any changes to the raw data, typically across networks.

A ripped CD can fail a CRC against an online database for many reasons, the simplist being differing versions of the same CD pressed at different locations, or different international pressings that contain the same source data, yet all would be considered perfect audibly. Something as simple as a US version and a European version, which contains exactly the same songs can differ when it comes to its raw digital data, but will sound and play identically, yet may fail a CRC.

So to blanketly assume it's an 'error' in its literal sense, poor manufacture or just a bad rip, isn't the full picture and may put some people off or concern them unnecessarily. This quote in particular assumes a fault in the CD and isn't correct ”Some pressing factories seem to be worse than others."

I rip all my CDs and if I get a failed CRC report, I check the rip and if it plays perfectly and sounds OK, then it's fine and doesn't concern me.

Certainly take a failed CRC as in indicator to investigate further, but don't assume it's an error (as in bad), it may just be 'different' in its raw data form which as outlined can be 110011 to 110010 digitally which nobody is going to detect audibly - it could just be the length of silent lead in or lead out data from different pressings. Not bad or an error, just slightly different [emoji6]

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Not sure where logic comes into this. Logically, surely you'd expect the burned cd to sound identical to the 'official' cd. Why wouldn't it?

It is very easy to copy music with digital, and get perfect copies every time. Hence the record company's obsession with copy protection systems and digital rights management.

Was looking to buy a cd the other day, nothing out of the ordinary. Only seller I can find wants forty quid! For that I could buy a cd recorder and a hundred cd-rs and still have change, then find someone who has the cd and just copy it. No value in it at all, really, let alone £40 worth. Very odd.

[Ronksley]

Not sure where logic comes into this. Logically, surely you'd expect the burned cd to sound identical to the 'official' cd. Why wouldn't it?

It is very easy to copy music with digital, and get perfect copies every time. Hence the record company's obsession with copy protection systems and digital rights management.

Was looking to buy a cd the other day, nothing out of the ordinary. Only seller I can find wants forty quid! For that I could buy a cd recorder and a hundred cd-rs and still have change, then find someone who has the cd and just copy it. No value in it at all, really, let alone £40 worth. Very odd.

Some secondhand prices on line are just why too high dont know if people buy at high pirces I hope not

More and more I have been tending towards burning downloads to listen on CDr if I really want to sit down and have a proper listen, this is mainly because my PC is a noisey thing
Thinking I might burn a few for listening over the weekend

[Macca]

Some secondhand prices on line are just why too high dont know if people buy at high pirces I hope not

More and more I have been tending towards burning downloads to listen on CDr if I really want to sit down and have a proper listen, this is mainly because my PC is a noisey thing
Thinking I might burn a few for listening over the weekend

I won't get involved with using a computer to listen to music, just too much faff. I just don't get the prices asked for some cds. For a vinyl record I can understand asking a premium, but a CD can be copied perfectly with no hassle and very little expense. Okay so doing it is illegal, but since when has that stopped anyone? Especially when the financial saving made is significant. And if the disc is out of print anyway your are not taking food from the artist's mouth, or the record company's, as a legitimate purchase is not an option.

Interestingly the cd I wanted is also available as a box set of 5 discs, one is a cd of the album, one a remix of said album, one a remix but in 24/92 'resolution' and one is a DVD (with remixed 5.1 sound).

Why anyone would want to pay extra for all that crap I have no idea. We were better off years ago when you just went down the high street, handed over a bluey and took the record home with you.

[Stratmangler]

You have me intrigued Martin - which album is it that you're looking for?

[Tim]

Not sure where logic comes into this. Logically, surely you'd expect the burned cd to sound identical to the 'official' cd. Why wouldn't it?

It is very easy to copy music with digital, and get perfect copies every time.
Exactly Martin.

I think folk may be getting confused by comparing apples and oranges and relying too much on software or mis-interpreting results from an online database CRC.

I can see where the confusion may lie, but its actually very logical and a burned CD will sound the same as the doner CD, assuming your player has no problem with the format.

And a lossless file, depending on certain parameters, can often sound better than the original CD it was ripped from. But this, like anything, is very equipment dependant and a potential bun fight all of its own [emoji6]

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Jethro Tull, 'Songs From The Wood'.

Fortunately a member here is very generously sending me his spare copy.

[Stratmangler]

£6.00 in HMV, also in a 2 for £10.00 offer.

[Macca]

So why is it £40 on Amazon?

[Stratmangler]

They obviously don't want the business ;)

[Lerxst]

Not sure where logic comes into this. Logically, surely you'd expect the burned cd to sound identical to the 'official' cd. Why wouldn't it?

This is exactly my point. OK, my mind says that this is the logic:

Regardless how the discs are made, what the cd player reads is 1s and 0s on a disk. These are, as far as I know, tiny dots etched into the aluminium foil on the CD. It starts at the middle and works outwards. A CD player has to accurately read these - this means the speed of a CD player must change accurately as it reads from the first track to the last. It is something like 500 revs to 300. The adjustments as it turns must be accurate. This is the selling point of the cxc (to a degree). So, I have this mega accurate CD player reading my discs. However...I have burned them on a crappy CD burner, which I'd wager has not got the same technology. It has a sh**ty 10 pence electric motor/chip doing these adjustments. The cxc's Chip and motor probably costs about £30, maybe more.

So, logic says that a 10 pence mechanism has recorded my disc. It is read by a £30 system which is built specially to do just that. Yet, my discs sound as good as the factory-made discs, which I'd also wager cost more than 10 pence.

Maybe I have duff ears, but it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not complaining, cos it works well, but my question is: why? Surely there should be some company in the world which is selling burning gear to audiophiles which is top-notch and burns the discs at accurate speeds. But is no such company as far as I know.

If I change to another CD player on the other hand - the perfectly reasonable Marantz CD 6005 as a transport for example - I *can* hear a difference between that and the cxc. With a disc from my cd burner.

I just don't get it. My CD burner should be be not be suitable for the job, but it is somehow.

Oh well.

[bobvfr]

If you copied the bible on a type writer how many spelling mistakes do you think you would make?

But if all you had to do is download it, what are the chances of any single letter being wrong.

[Tim]

This is exactly my point. OK, my mind says that this is the logic:

I think you're over thinking it Chris ;)

[alphaGT]

Maybe bits is bits after all? The speed at which digits are applied to the disc shouldn’t be as serious as the speed at which they are removed. It’s just a continuous stream of numbers, buffers and clocks keep them coming off the disc at the correct speed. Regardless of how fast or slow they went on. Should you hear a difference? Logic says no, same digits coming off with the same precision, but that doesn’t mean that if you play both on a £7,000 player you may hear a difference? Or maybe not?

But as said above, cheap burned CD’s don’t last. When I left my computer job some 13 years ago, I made copies of all my tools from my desktop to the cheap blanks the company provided before leaving the company. It wasn’t 5 or 6 years later and they would not play, unreadable. Stored on a dry, dark shelf. But I do see that they have some brands made to archive. Mobile Fidelity makes gold CD’s and DVD’s that claim to last 300 years! I can’t testify to that personally, but if it’s something important, they would be worth using.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lerxst]

Thank you for your answers. The CDs will outlive me, so no worries there.

I think Russell has the right idea: "The speed at which digits are applied to the disc shouldn’t be as serious as the speed at which they are removed."

Hmm. Maybe I'm over-thinking this. But how does software know how fast to play a wav or mp3 file? There must be markers in the files or on the cds that provide the timing.

My mission, and I have accepted it, is to find out. I will let you know.

[walpurgis]

Hmm. Maybe I'm over-thinking this. But how does software know how fast to play a wav or mp3 file? There must be markers in the files or on the cds that provide the timing.

That's a good question. I've not considered this about music files, as I don't use them. Something must stop it happening all at once! :)

I'd imagine it's similar to the way data from a PC hard drive is accessed and used.

[Macca]

Thank you for your answers. The CDs will outlive me, so no worries there.

I think Russell has the right idea: "The speed at which digits are applied to the disc shouldn’t be as serious as the speed at which they are removed."

Hmm. Maybe I'm over-thinking this. But how does software know how fast to play a wav or mp3 file? There must be markers in the files or on the cds that provide the timing.

My mission, and I have accepted it, is to find out. I will let you know.

There is a 'clock' as it is called in the player and that determines the 'speed' although that is not really how it works. In the case of a transport/DAC you have 2 clocks, hence you hear about synching the clocks or re-clocking to eliminate jitter, which is distortion caused by timing error. However, despite what you read, this distortion is not audible except in extreme cases, it is below the noise floor.

Your thinking that the cd is burnt like a record is cut or a magnetic tape is recorded onto. But it isn't.

As pointed out above by Grant et al, the only disadvantage of the CD-R is that they are sometimes not robust and will degrade over time to the point where they cannot be read. With a proper, professional CD machine you feed in plastic and it makes the discs and burns them. They are big things, would fill your room. So not the same as a domestic CD recorder.

[struth]

They are tagged at the speed they are written I think.. ie 44.1khz and the clock replays it at same rate...hopefully

[Lerxst]

OK, it is complicated and everyone seems to have a bit of the puzzle. This doesn't go into sample rates or anything, just track structure.

The Red Book contains a standard originally created for CDs by Sony and Philips. It was a compromise of what both firms wanted. It really does go above my head but after trying to make sense of it all I can summarise it like this (CD track timecoding for dummies):

On a CD there is a Lead-In and a Lead-Out - you often see your computer software compiling these. The lead-in contains data, much like the file tables hard drives have - like an index - it lets the cd play know about the content, how many tracks etc, if there are hidden tracks too. Track positions are referenced by a timecode. The way it is coded goes down to about one 75th of a second. These block are called frames, so if your CD player knows the rules the Red Book laid down about the structure of the frames then it knows when to start reading and at what tempo - in two or more channels (eg SACD). It is constantly working all this out - and there are vast amounts of data about the normal stereo music, control data and error correction possibilities.

So, as long as my cheap CD burner gets the info onto that CD-R it does not matter too much how it got there. It is reading it that is the difficult part.
I haven't looked at how streamers play files, but there have to be standards containing similar info for mp3, wav, flac etc etc.

At the start when I was searching I even found variable pitch CD players - whaaat? Not researching that.

For the people who really want to know then here is where I found the most accessible info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timecode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_(CD)#Audio_tracks

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio

[struth]

OK, it is complicated and everyone seems to have a bit of the puzzle. This doesn't go into sample rates or anything, just track structure.

The Red Book contains a standard originally created for CDs by Sony and Philips. It was a compromise of what both firms wanted. It really does go above my head but after trying to make sense of it all I can summarise it like this (CD track timecoding for dummies):

On a CD there is a Lead-In and a Lead-Out - you often see your computer software compiling these. The lead-in contains data, much like the file tables hard drives have - like an index - it lets the cd play know about the content, how many tracks etc, if there are hidden tracks too. Track positions are referenced by a timecode. The way it is coded goes down to about one 75th of a second. These block are called frames, so if your CD player knows the rules the Red Book laid down about the structure of the frames then it knows when to start reading and at what tempo - in two or more channels (eg SACD). It is constantly working all this out - and there are vast amounts of data about the normal stereo music, control data and error correction possibilities.

So, as long as my cheap CD burner gets the info onto that CD-R it does not matter too much how it got there. It is reading it that is the difficult part.
I haven't looked at how streamers play files, but there have to be standards containing similar info for mp3, wav, flac etc etc.

At the start when I was searching I even found variable pitch CD players - whaaat? Not researching that.

For the people who really want to know then here is where I found the most accessible info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timecode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_(CD)#Audio_tracks

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio

yes variable pitch cd players lol. they stole that from the techy:eyebrows: File streaming often has this too. Jriver has a section where you can do all sort of changes re this.

[Lerxst]

Your thinking that the cd is burnt like a record is cut or a magnetic tape is recorded onto. But it isn't.

As pointed out above by Grant et al, the only disadvantage of the CD-R is that they are sometimes not robust and will degrade over time to the point where they cannot be read. With a proper, professional CD machine you feed in plastic and it makes the discs and burns them. They are big things, would fill your room. So not the same as a domestic CD recorder.

I knew it was not the same as a record (and having looked at how that is done makes me wonder how a useable product comes out)

CD-Rs, CD-RW and conventinal CDs are constructed differently. CD-Rs, which I use only have a dye which is changed by the laser when burning, to prevent reflections from the aluminium background. Conventional CDs are actually pressed but the aluminium reflective layer of a master CD is etched with "pits" which do not reflect light. They last a lot longer that way. Result is the same. Your CD player needs to be able to read the CD-Rs. Remember when the bloody things would't work on the older CD players?

[JimC]

This thread seems to have diversified into several different lines of enquiry ! My take on a few of the points are;

The writing speed at which the Data is 'written' to the disc has really no relationship to the Data Stream speed on replay.
The ones and noughts can be written to the Blank CD-R/RW at any speed you like. The Data includes clocks which then determine the speed at which the Data needs to come off the Disc when it is being read. Some CD Players (most modern ones which use 'DVD' Drives as their Mechanisms) may spin the Disc at twice the speed and feed the Data into Memory.
The OP stated ''..I have a Cambridge Audio CXC......and runs them at super-correct speed...'' It may do so, but it will not differentiate audibly between a Burnt Disc or a 'Pressed' one, it will read the Clocks within the Data Stream and spin the disc at the correct speed. It may spin them at a more 'correct' speed than another player for example so a pressed CD played on your CXC may sound different because of this when compared to another machine and a burnt disc may also sound different on the CXC compared with another machine. But whether it is a pressed pit or a burnt spot on the dye of a CD-R it is either a one or a nought to the CXC and it doesn't care what speed the pits/burnt dye is put on to the disc, it is only looking at the clocks within the data stream and spinning the disc accordingly so the data recovery rate is correct with reference to its own internal clocks.

I think the difference in sound between players comes from how well the data is then assembled and fed to its internal DAC or fed via SPDIF to an external DAC. In the case of SPDIF I think it is the quality of the ones and noughts here that can make a difference to the Analogue sound too. I've said on this Forum before that I think the shape of the SPDIF signal makes an audible difference too.

As for File based playback, again, it is all in the clocks within the SPDIF Stream or the Data being fed to the internal DAC. By the time it gets to the DAC Chip itself (and I'm talking about good old fashioned DACs here, I am still not 100% up on DELTA/SIGMA DAC technology) it usually consists of three signals, the raw DATA, a Left/Right Clock and a Bit Clock. For Red Book CD Audio whether it comes from a Disc or a computer file the Left/Right Clock has to be 44.1kHz and the Bit Clock has to be 1.4112MHz. Then it'll be played back at the right 'speed'. (Obviously that's for a non-oversampling DAC).

Well, that's the way it works in my head anyway ;)

Goodnight All,

Jim.

[Lerxst]

I wanted an answer to a question. And I got that. But I got more - a lot more. But hey, enough of my yakkin'. Whaddaya say? let's boogie!

[Macca]

Don't look for it. it's not there anymore.

[Pieoftheday]

So why is it £40 on Amazon?

I was looking for a deleted CUD album a bit back £200 !!! Haha bollox. 6 month later it was re released, got the original for 10 delivered